[blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Karel:

>You're in a teams match.  The bidding proceeds
>
>1D   3C    ??
>
>Your hand
>S AQxx
>H KTx
>D xxx
>C Qxx
>
>You have looked at the opponents CC before the start of the match and
>noted they are playing Ghestem.  LHO does not alert 3C's
>
>Assume you pass (looks like opps having a bidding misunderstanding,
>why wake them up), it goes
>
> ... All pass !!
>
>
>RHO has 7 clubs to the KJT, LHO has both majors ...  3C - 2.  Any redress?

Richard Hills:

The facts are insufficient for me to give a fully informed ruling.  I do
have two guesses.

My "first guess" (Sven Pran School) as to the actual facts is ->

(a) LHO and RHO have a partnership agreement to play Ghestem.
(b) You know about their agreement to play Ghestem by viewing their CC.
(c) LHO commits the trivial infraction of failing to alert RHO's call.
(d) This trivial infraction does not cause you any damage, since you
already know about their Ghestem agreement.
(e) However, the failure to alert causes you to guess, at your own risk,
that not only has LHO forgotten to alert, but also LHO has forgotten that
their partnership plays the Ghestem convention.
(f) LHO has indeed forgotten the Ghestem convention, and does in fact pass
RHO's Ghestem 3C.  A triumph for your at-your-own-risk guess!
(g) Oops.  RHO also forgot that they were playing Ghestem.  Unlucky.  Rub
of the green.

My "second guess" (Richard Hills School) as to the actual facts is ->

(x) LHO and RHO have a notional explicit partnership agreement to play the
Ghestem convention.
(y) Due to very frequent forgetting of Ghestem by both LHO and RHO, their
notional explicit partnership agreement has been superseded by their actual
implicit partnership agreement that 3C is a two-way convention, either a
Ghestem two-suiter or a club one-suiter.
(z) Ergo, LHO and RHO have given MI, and may also be playing an illegal
convention (depending upon local Law 40D regulations).

Sven Pran:

>>Whenever I am called to a table to rule on MI and there is doubt about
the actual agreements I take written evidence (e.g. CC) to be stronger
>>than verbal evidence (e.g. lack of alert) unless there is additional,
>>overwhelming evidence corroborating the verbal evidence.

Richard Hills:

Requiring "overwhelming evidence" to over-rule what is written on the CC
is, in my opinion, too simplistic.  It is the Director's job to assess the
facts, not to assume that their Sven Pran School suspicions and/or Richard
Hills School suspicions are almost always automatically correct.

As I have noted before when discussing Sven's touching belief in the CC,
quite often in partnerships one player is The Master.  The Master issues
the diktat "We will play the Hoffmeister 1NT convention".  Then The Master
writes "Hoffmeister 1NT" on the CC.  And meanwhile The Master's partner has
zero comprehension of what the Hoffmeister 1NT convention is, which means
that there is zero _partnership_ agreement to play the Hoffmeister 1NT.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch, DIAC
02 6223 9052

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm